rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Would the end of The Wrath of Khan have more of an impact now when you rewatch it if Spock had never returned?
Spock's death
- Thread starter rodneyfaile
- Start date
Vermithrax 4
Well-Known Member
Absolutely it would have more impact. I always thought Trek III was such a complete waste of time and money. Although I enjoyed III for the fun of it, it was basically Paramount making one whole film correcting a mistake they feel they made. Would've been better if they had left him dead, his resurrection was just too much of a silly premise. Don't get me wrong, I love Spock in Trek IV and VI (I try to ignore Trek V) so I'm glad he's there, it's just that bringing him back totally negated any and all lasting emotional impact of his sacrifice and death.
Oh, well...that's Trek for ya' I guess.
Oh, well...that's Trek for ya' I guess.
Blame Nimoy and Bennet for that.
Leonard was very very smart in what he negotiated all through out Trek.
As to the original question the impact would have been different if spock never returned
Leonard was very very smart in what he negotiated all through out Trek.
As to the original question the impact would have been different if spock never returned
darthgordon
Sr Member
I'd agree. It would be different. It's still a very well done, emotional scene though.
Trek III was calculated to negate everything that happened in WOK... from Kirk's line about the "needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many" (ugh), to destroying the Enterprise (which had performed so well in the previous film but was now "too old" and ready to be scrapped!)...
III was a real disappointment, and set the tone for the following films... the inexplicably malfunctioning Enterprise in Trek 5 (even though a new vessel was gifted to Kirk in the previous film!), the familiar cast acting "out of character"... and perhaps worst of all, the resurrected Spock acting like a braindead ninny (Trek 4) and then later like some sort of spiritual guru...
Also bringing Spock back estabished the cliched Trek "reset button": "it's science fiction, nobody has to stay dead forever." This trivializes any act of heroism or sacrifice... it's all just rolling dice to generate "scenarios". Over-reliance on reset buttons crippled Trek plots for decades to come.
III was a real disappointment, and set the tone for the following films... the inexplicably malfunctioning Enterprise in Trek 5 (even though a new vessel was gifted to Kirk in the previous film!), the familiar cast acting "out of character"... and perhaps worst of all, the resurrected Spock acting like a braindead ninny (Trek 4) and then later like some sort of spiritual guru...
Also bringing Spock back estabished the cliched Trek "reset button": "it's science fiction, nobody has to stay dead forever." This trivializes any act of heroism or sacrifice... it's all just rolling dice to generate "scenarios". Over-reliance on reset buttons crippled Trek plots for decades to come.
Last edited:
A few times I've wondered how it could have played if III and IV had been reversed in the chronology. A first mission without Spock, McCoy going through the anguish in their century only to be relieved of it in ours and capably carrying out his assignment with Scotty, and then back to their century where he gets mentally hammered again. Then starting to bring in the implications of the Genesis planet, a Klingon incursion while Earth/Starfleet was otherwise occupied, etc.
Star Trek 3 and 5 is what happens when you bribe an actor with the Director's Chair to make the next film.
Nimoy wanted out, so they killed Spock.
When TWOK hit big, (they thought it would be the last Trek film) Paramount saw sequel again. But Dead Spock.
Dangled DIRECTOR in front of Nimoy, and we get Jim the Taxi Driver as a Klingon.
Back in the day after Season One. Nimoy and Shatners lawyers got together and made a deal that whatever Shatner GOT NImoy GOT and vice versa, so they had to let Shatner direct one too. And Sybok was born.
Be careful what you wish for. Although I like ST5.
And after all, weak Star Trek is better than NO Star Trek. It just is.
Nimoy wanted out, so they killed Spock.
When TWOK hit big, (they thought it would be the last Trek film) Paramount saw sequel again. But Dead Spock.
Dangled DIRECTOR in front of Nimoy, and we get Jim the Taxi Driver as a Klingon.
Back in the day after Season One. Nimoy and Shatners lawyers got together and made a deal that whatever Shatner GOT NImoy GOT and vice versa, so they had to let Shatner direct one too. And Sybok was born.
Be careful what you wish for. Although I like ST5.
And after all, weak Star Trek is better than NO Star Trek. It just is.
Probe Droid
Master Member
**** Yes.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I've always been of the mindset that subsequent sequels/prequels do not alter my enjoyment of the originals, but this instance has me reconsidering my stance.
Imagine how great a moment that would have been if that was the last time we ever saw Spock!
Imagine how great a moment that would have been if that was the last time we ever saw Spock!
And people wonder why I don't think TWOK is as great as everyone goes on about.
Sure it's a good fun movie. But it's not that great a Star Trek story, aside from the plot rehash.
If you're going to slam TMP for being a rehash of The Changeling, then TWOK is just a submarine movie combined with a rehash of Space Seed.
Sure it's a good fun movie. But it's not that great a Star Trek story, aside from the plot rehash.
If you're going to slam TMP for being a rehash of The Changeling, then TWOK is just a submarine movie combined with a rehash of Space Seed.
I did too, but 3 is the weakest of them all because it is terribly contrived, and I missed Kirstie Alley.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Okay I have to disagree a bit. You are 100% bang on right that Trek III was unbelievably contrived however it's certainly not the first time they pulled something like this...
Spock "should" have been a blind Vulcan at the end of the 1st season.
Now THERE was some drama! Spock is attacked by an alien parasite and will die if he is not subjected to a treatment of blinding light that will give him permanent blindness.
The treatment is administered and Spock is very much blind, however it is discovered that the visible light of the spectrum was not necessary to destroy the parasite- Spock didn't have to be blinded.
THAT was brilliant!
Oh but Spock forgot about his Vulcan inner eyelid which protects him from blinding light; he had his full sight back by the end of the episode. :rolleyes
Talk about contrived. :lol
Think about how progressive the series would have been with a blind Spock. You have a crew made up of different nationalities (who are all equals- no racial prejudice) and now a "disabled" character.
Except "I" don't believe that the audience of the 60s would accept it (a blind Spock that is).
They could have had a few episodes of him being blind and having his sight gradually return, but didn't have the guts to try that either.
Don't get me wrong- like I said Trek III is VERY contrived, and "I" was glad to have Spock back too (I think the only thing that could have been worse is him "not being dead but just resting" when they fired him out of the torpedo bay :facepalm :lol).
Getting back to the original question: The end of ST:II still has its emotional impact for me 30 years later (even after watching this film probably over 1000 times), but if it was Spock's last outing, it would probably make me cry my eyes out just like I did when I first watched it in 1982. So yes it would definitely have a greater impact.
To each his own.
I liked (young) Kirstie Alley too, but I would have no problem with some Ponn Farr from Robin Curtis. :love :lol
Kevin
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
It's been a while since I've seen Trek 3, though it was pretty mediocre from what I remember. But you can't blame Trek 3 for resurrecting Spock. Trek II setup his resurrection from the get go with his "remember" mind meld, Kirk's monologue at the end and of course the final shot of Spock's torpedo coffin underscored by James Horner's music. Paramount and Co. were, at the very least, giving themselves the option of bringing back Spock.
Actually the Mount did not want Nimoy directing Leonard had to fight hard on that one.
Again Nimoy was his best Agent and Shatner owes a debt to him for the Favored actor clause! :lol
Again Nimoy was his best Agent and Shatner owes a debt to him for the Favored actor clause! :lol
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
If Spock had not been ressurrected, he would have never been there to re-set the timeline and JJ would have had to make a totally different movie!
My wife always used to laugh at me that I seemed to have little emotional response to them killing Spock as I watched it happen on screen, but when in ST3 they cut to that close up of the main dish of the Enterprise going BOOM!!!!!......I let out an audible squelch. :lol
